The State of Bad Faith Litigation in Kansas (and Missouri) Scott Nutter and Daniel Singer Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd.
|
|
- Edward Quinn
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The State of Bad Faith Litigation in Kansas (and Missouri) I. What is covered in this presentation? We will discuss: Scott Nutter and Daniel Singer Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. The duties owed by an insurance company to its insured; The mechanics of filing and litigating against an insurance company that has breached its duties to its insured; and Some strategic considerations involved in such litigation, presented in the context of a case we recently resolved. The emphasis of this presentation is on Kansas law, though many of the principles discussed would apply in other jurisdictions. We have also highlighted some specific distinctions under Missouri law. Of course, this area of law is complex and the case law is unusually robust, so what follows is merely a summary of some of the more important concepts. II. What is this cause of action? In short: when an insurance carrier breaches a contractual duty owed to its insured, and when such breach leads to entry of a judgment against the insured, the insured may seek payment by the carrier of the entire judgment amount, even if the judgment is in excess of the coverage limits. This action is most commonly assigned to and brought by the injured party in exchange for the injured party s promise not to execute the judgment against the insured s personal assets. In Kansas: a contract action evaluated using tort standards. Under Kansas law, even though an insurer s duties to its insured are contractually based, breach of such duties is determined by a tort standard of care... As a result, Kansas courts use negligence, due care, and other tort concepts to describe the substance of this contract duty. Roberts v. Printup, 595 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010). In Kansas, either a negligent breach of contract or a bad faith breach of contract is sufficient to render the insurance carrier liable. Negligence is generally regarded as a less rigorous burden for a plaintiff to carry, as proving an insurer s mal-intent is not required.
2 Missouri distinction: bad faith refusal to settle is a tort action. Zumwalt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 228 S.W.2d 750, 756 (Mo. 1950). Whether an insurer acted in bad faith is a generally a fact question for the jury... Liability cannot be predicated upon negligence, but, rather, there must be a showing of a lack of good faith. Allen v. Bryers, No. SC 95358, 2016 WL (Mo. Dec. 20, 2016). Bad faith has been defined by the Missouri Supreme Court as the intentional disregard of the financial interest of [the] insured in the hope of escaping the responsibility imposed upon the [insurer] by its policy. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Addison Ins. Co., 448 S.W.3d 818, 828 (Mo. 2014). In Missouri, though bad faith refusal to settle is a tort action, failure to provide a defense to the insured is a contractual claim. Bonner v. Auto. Club Inter-Ins. Exch., 899 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). III. What are some of the duties of an insurance company in a third-party liability case? Duty to Provide a (Competent) Defense An insurance carrier has a duty to provide a defense if there is any potential for coverage, meaning the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. MGM v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 253 Kan. 198, 855 P.2d 77 (1993). Obviously, the defense provided must be a competent one. Inherent within the duty to exercise good faith in hiring independent counsel is the duty to hire counsel that is competent to defend the allegations against its insured and to provide such counsel with adequate resources to competently defend the suit. Hackman v. W. Agr. Ins. Co., 275 P.3d 73 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012) Duty to Initiate Settlement Negotiations/Duty to Settle Within Policy Limits An insurance company has a duty to conduct a good faith investigation of claims. Koch, Administratrix v. Prudential Ins. Co., 205 Kan. 561, 470 P.2d 756 (1970). When an insurance carrier knows or should know that liability is reasonably clear and the damages exceed available coverage, the insurance company has a duty to promptly initiate settlement. This is because a claim for damages in excess of the policy limits creates a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured. Under such circumstances, the carrier must give equal consideration to the interests of the insured, meaning the claim should be evaluated by the insurer without looking to the policy limits and as though it alone would be responsible for the payment of any judgment rendered on the claim. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Schropp, 222 Kan. 612, 567 P.2d 1359 (1977). 2
3 Importantly, there is no demand requirement that is, the duty to settle exists without regard to whether the injured party makes a settlement offer. Coleman v. Holecek, 542 F.2d 532, 536 (10th Cir. 1976). Covill v. Phillips, 452 F. Supp. 224 (D. Kan. 1978). Put another way, the duty arises not out of actions taken by the injured party, but rather out of the insurer s obligation to give equal consideration to the interests of its insureds as it gives to itself. Missouri law on carrier s duty: Examples of bad faith include: failing to investigate fully a third-party claimant's injuries or recognize their severity; ignoring that a verdict could exceed policy limits; refusing to consider a settlement offer; and not keeping an insured informed of settlement offers or the risks of an excess judgment. Allen v. Bryers, No. SC 95358, 2016 WL (Mo. Dec. 20, 2016) (citing Shobe v. Kelly, 279 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)). Missouri law on demand requirement: Early bad faith cases set forth the proposition that an insurer was not guilty of bad faith unless the insured made a demand of the carrier to settle. More recently, the Missouri Supreme Court dispelled that notion, finding that although the existence of a demand is relevant in determining whether the carrier acted in bad faith, the Court has never required the insured to make a demand for settlement and declines [the] invitation to do so. Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Addison Ins. Co., 448 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. 2014). Accordingly, a bad faith refusal to settle action will lie when a liability insurer: (1) reserves the exclusive right to contest or settle any claim; (2) prohibits the insured from voluntarily assuming any liability or settling any claims without consent; and (3) is guilty of fraud or bad faith in refusing to settle a claim within the limits of the policy. Id. 3
4 IV. Who can bring a bad faith case? Direct action: An insured may bring a breach of contract action against his or her own insurance carrier. See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Schropp, 222 Kan. 612, 567 P.2d 1359 (1977). Assignment by Insured to Injured Party ( Glenn v. Fleming Agreements ) Because the insured s action against the insurance carrier is a contract claim, it may be assigned. This assignment is typically given by the insured to the injured party in exchange for the injured party s agreement not to pursue the insured s personal assets to satisfy a judgment in excess of the coverage limit. Such arrangement was approved in Glenn v. Fleming, 247 Kan. 296, 799 P.2d 79 (1990). The mechanics of entering into a Glenn v. Fleming agreement are discussed later. Garnishment Where a plaintiff has obtained a judgment against the insured following negligence or bad faith by the insurance carrier, the plaintiff may with or without obtaining an assignment bring a garnishment action against the insurance carrier to collect the full judgment amount. Moses v. Halstead, 491 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1974). Unlike the direct or assigned breach of contract actions described above, garnishment actions are tried to a judge, not a jury. Missouri Law: RSMo : Any person having an unliquidated claim for damages against a tort-feasor, on account of bodily injuries or death, may enter into a contract with such tort-feasor or any insurer in his behalf or both, whereby, in consideration of the payment of a specified amount, the person asserting the claim agrees that in the event of a judgment against the tort-feasor, neither he nor any person, firm or corporation claiming by or through him will levy execution, by garnishment or as otherwise provided by law, except against the specific assets listed in the contract and except against any insurer which insures the legal liability of the tort-feasor for such damage and which insurer is not excepted from execution, garnishment or other legal procedure by such contract... 4
5 Assignability under Missouri law An insurer's duty to act in good faith in settling third-party claims arises from the insurer's reservation in the policy of the exclusive right to contest and settle thirdparty claims. An action for the breach of that duty, while a tort, arises from a contract of insurance, which is not of a purely personal nature. Therefore, a bad faith refusal to settle action falls within the category of assignable torts. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Addison Ins. Co., 448 S.W.3d 818, (Mo. 2014). Garnishment under Missouri law Following entry of an excess judgment, the plaintiff-assignee may commence a garnishment action against the carrier. Under Missouri law, there are two avenues of relevance: a traditional/legal garnishment under RSMo /Rule 90 and an equitable garnishment under RSMo Recent case law indicates that in a traditional/legal garnishment action, the judgment-creditor s recovery may be limited to the available insurance coverage whereas success in an equitable garnishment entitles the plaintiff/assignee/judgment-creditor to recovery of all extra-contractual damages. See Allen v. Bryers, No. SC 95358, 2016 WL , at *7 (Mo. Dec. 20, 2016) ( [A]n equitable garnishment plaintiff may assert additional claims that go beyond the mere satisfaction of the underlying judgment for the contractual limits such as an insurer's alleged bad faith in refusing to defend or settle the claim that, if proven, would permit recovery beyond the insurance policy limits. ) Traditional garnishment and equitable garnishment are not mutually exclusive remedies, so it is often useful or even necessary to bring both actions to ensure full recovery. See id. at *7 n. 8. 5
6 V. Case Study: Rudzik v. Star Insurance (Grant County, Kansas) Facts of the collision (November 2012) o Clear liability Evident from police report and witness statements. o Catastrophic injury Evident from pictures of the wreck, early medical records and diagnostic codes, and the insurance carrier s on-the-ground investigation. o No potential for assigning fault to plaintiff Suspected from the beginning and confirmed by testing of the plaintiff s turn signal light. o Limited coverage Carrier knew early on that the damages would likely exceed $1M policy limits. Underlying litigation o Repeated requests for coverage information before suit filed. Failure of carrier to provide necessary information and initiate settlement negotiations. (January-May 2013) o Suit commenced. (July 2013) o Failure of the carrier, even after receiving additional medical records, to initiate settlement negotiations. (May-October 2013) o Untimely policy limits offer. Irrelevant if the carrier has already breached its duty to the insured. (October 2013). [A]ll the good faith and settlement offers in the world after suit is filed will not immunize a company from the consequences of an unjustified refusal to pay which made the suit necessary... If an insurer were permitted to cure an earlier breach of a fiduciary duty, the policy of encouraging an insurer to exercise due care and attempt to settle claims in a fair and expeditious manner would be undermined. Roberts v. Printup, 595 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2010). 6
7 Assignment (September 2014) o In light of the carrier s breach of its contractual duties to its insureds, the plaintiff entered into a Glenn v. Fleming agreement with the insureds. o Notably, the agreement left it to the judge to decide fault and damages after presentation of evidence at a contested bench trial (discussed below), rendering the resulting judgment immune from attack in ensuing breach of contract litigation. Where an assignment agreement sets forth determinations of fault and the amount of damages, the Glenn court expressed concerns over enforcing resulting judgments against the insurance carrier. Under such circumstances, the Court set forth a two-step test for enforceability of the judgment against the insurance carrier. Initially, the plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence that the settlement amount was reasonable and reached in good faith; once the plaintiff makes that showing, the burdens of proof and persuasion rest with the insurer to establish that the settlement was made in bad faith or that it was unreasonable. Where an assignment agreement leaves it to the judge to assign fault and/or damages, the two-step Glenn test does not apply. Instead, the insurer is simply estopped from challenging the judgment in the ensuing breach of contract case. E.g. Dyer v. Holland, No , 1997 WL (D. Kan. Dec. 9, 1997). Missouri case law on enforceability of judgment. [A]n insurer who had notice of the litigation and the opportunity to control and manage it is bound by the result of the litigation, and the judgment rendered therein is conclusive in a later action on the indemnity contract as to those issues and questions necessarily determined in the underlying judgment. Vill. at Deer Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 432 S.W.3d 231, 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). Where the insurer had the opportunity to defend the insured but wrongfully refused to do so, the insurer is precluded from relitigating any facts that actually were determined in the underlying case and were necessary to the judgment. The facts decided in the underlying action most often will determine whether there is a duty to indemnify. Allen v. Bryers, No. SC 95358, 2016 WL , at *10 (Mo. Dec. 20, 2016). 7
8 Trial/Judgment (September 2014) o One day contested bench trial. Counsel for the insured cross-examined witnesses and contested the life care plan, arguing for damages in the $3-4M range. o Judge found insureds 100% at fault and entered judgment in the amount of $10,482, Litigation against the insurance carrier (December 2014-December 2016) o Following entry of judgment against the insureds, the plaintiffs filed an action for breach of contract against the insurance carrier. They did so as assignees pursuant to the Glenn v. Fleming agreement. The insureds were also plaintiffs, alleging tort claims against the independent investigator hired by the carrier. o When deposed, the carrier s adjusters admitted that early on, they knew the case involved clear liability and exposure in excess of the available coverage. They further admitted that under such circumstances, the insurance carrier has a duty to initiate settlement negotiations. Simply put, that was the case against the insurance carrier. Notwithstanding knowledge within a month or two of the collision that triggered the duty to settle, the carrier waited approximately eleven months to make a policy limits offer. o The carrier s defenses evolved somewhat during the course of the litigation. At times, the carrier argued that early initiation of settlement negotiations was unwarranted because it was unclear whether the plaintiff s paralysis was permanent or whether the paralysis pre-dated the wreck. These apparent concerns were not contemporaneously documented in the claims file. o The carrier also claimed that until complete medical records were received, it was reasonable to delay initiation of settlement negotiations. The plaintiff countered that very early, the medical documentation in the carrier s possession provided ample basis to conclude that the plaintiff was paralyzed as a result of the insured s conduct and regardless of what detail additional records would reveal, the case was worth well in excess of the available $1M in coverage. Further, the decision to finally make a policy limits offer came prior to receipt of the complete medical records, undercutting this rationalization for not paying earlier. o Included in the records the insurer had from nearly the very beginning was a set of medical bills and claims forms confirming the cause and extent of plaintiff s paralysis and containing diagnostic (ICD9) codes that provided even more specificity. In addition to highlighting the significance of the bills and claims forms (which plainly described paralysis ), the plaintiff developed evidence that ICD9 codes are a reliable source of both causation 8
9 and damages information. In this case, the plaintiff s ICD9 codes echoed and expanded upon the plain language of the claims forms lending further certainty that the plaintiff was paralyzed secondary to a motor vehicle collision. o The final defense the carrier raised was based on a federal case, Wade v. EMCASCO, 483 F.3d 657 (10th Cir. 2007). This case is often used by defendant insurance carriers because, they argue, it establishes that a plaintiff s attorney cannot manufacture or set up a bad faith/breach of contract claim. The applicability of Wade s specific factual circumstances to subsequent cases (including this one) is routinely a source of disagreement. It is true that in Wade, the plaintiff s attorney was found to have actively frustrated the insurance carrier s efforts to comply with its duties to its insureds, but whether and to what extent Wade serves as a path to defeating subsequent breach of contract claims is hotly disputed by plaintiffs and defendants. VI. Strategic considerations during Rudzik v. Star litigation Jurisdiction The breach of contract case was filed in Grant County, Kansas. Although a local, non-diverse independent adjuster was named in the negligence action brought by the insureds, the defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging fraudulent joinder. The perceived danger to the defendants of litigating the breach of contract action in state court was that the judge who entered the sizeable judgment against the insureds would also be presiding over the breach of contract action. Remanding the case back to state court, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas held that proof of fraudulent joinder is a heavy burden that the removing defendants had not carried. To prevail under a theory of fraudulent joinder, a defendant must demonstrate that there is no possibility that [the plaintiffs] would be able to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party alleged to have been fraudulently joined. Rudzik v. Star Insurance Co., No MLB, 2015 WL (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2015); see also Montano v. Allstate Indemnity, 2000 WL (10th Cir. April 14, 2000). The causation element Plaintiffs in insurer breach of contract actions must prove that the carrier s breach caused or contributed to cause damage to the insured (e.g. entry of an excess judgment against the insured). This causation element is often satisfied with evidence that a timely offer of settlement would have been accepted. 9
10 When a carrier rejects a policy limits demand, the causation element is easy to establish, because the existence of a demand makes clear the plaintiff s willingness to accept a timely settlement offer. But as discussed above, there is no requirement under Kansas law that the injured plaintiff make a settlement demand of the carrier during the underlying litigation again, this is because the carrier s obligation to initiate settlement arises out of its duty to the insured, not out of any action taken by the plaintiff. Although the existence of a demand essentially obviates the causation argument, causation can still be established in the absence of a demand whether through testimony of the plaintiff that a timely offer would have been accepted, through expert testimony along the same lines, or in myriad other ways. Where a plaintiff intends to rely upon these alternative methods of proving causation, consideration must be given to whether and to what extent privilege and/or work product will need to be waived in order to adduce sufficient evidence. This is discussed below. Discovery The scope of permissible discovery is a key strategic battle in insurer breach of contract actions. As noted above, this battle often centers on applicability and waiver of privilege and/or work product. o Plaintiff s Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection In many instances, plaintiff s attorneys simply produce their entire file from the underlying litigation, assuming that this waiver is required when pursuing an insurer breach of contract action. Recent case law confirms, however, that such waiver is not automatically necessary. Where privileged information or work product is not placed at issue by the plaintiff, both the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine still apply. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. M.S. ex rel. Serrano, No. 11-CV-2075-JAR/KGG, 2011 WL (holding that the plaintiffs did not place privileged communications at issue simply [by] asserting [a] bad faith claim. ). Thus, plaintiffs must make a decision as to whether it is worth placing at issue privileged information or work product. The upside is that disclosing what went on internally during the underlying litigation may be helpful in establishing both breach of contract and causation. The downside is that disclosure of any privileged information risks at issue waiver of all privileged information, at least with regard to the topic the limited disclosure pertained to. 10
11 o Discoverability of Carrier s File Several documents are of central importance in any insurer breach of contract action. Most notably, the claims file will (or at least should) contain the bases or explanations for every action taken by the insurance carrier in the underlying litigation. There is no meritorious basis upon which the carrier can refuse production of the claims file. In fact, even in regular personal injury actions, a plaintiff may discover the contents of an insurance claims file up through the point in which outside counsel was retained. Henry Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 225 Kan. 615, 592 P.2d 915 (1979). In an insurer breach of contract case, there is an even broader justification for production of claims documents that might, at first glance, appear to be privileged. In Bollinger v. Nuss, 202 Kan. 326, 449 P.2d 502 (1969), the Kansas Supreme Court set forth eight factors that are always at issue in consideration of an insurance carrier s alleged breach of contract: (1) the strength of the injured claimant's case on the issues of liability and damages; (2) attempts by the insurer to induce the insured to contribute to a settlement; (3) failure of the insurer to properly investigate the circumstances so as to ascertain the evidence against the insured; (4) the insurer's rejection of advice of its own attorney or agent; (5) failure of the insurer to inform the insured of a compromise offer; (6) the amount of financial risk to which each party is exposed in the event of a refusal to settle; (7) the fault of the insured in inducing the insurer's rejection of the compromise offer by misleading it as to the facts; and (8) any other factors tending to establish or negate bad faith on the part of the insurer. Emphasis is added here to factors three and four because they are most pertinent with regard to discoverability of the carrier s file. Factor three confirms that all documents pertaining to the carrier s investigation (or failure to investigate) the claim against its insured are plainly relevant. And factor four establishes that advice rendered to the carrier even by its attorneys is relevant and necessarily at issue, frustrating most attempts by defendant carriers to withhold claims documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Other key documents to consider obtaining using Bollinger where necessary include those pertaining to reserves (evidences the carrier s estimation of the risk to its insured), those setting forth policies or procedures for claims handling and settlement (evidences standards set by the carrier itself regarding proper handling of claims), and personnel files for the adjusters handling the underlying claim (evidences the training provided to the carrier s employees and may contain relevant past instances of poor claims handling). 11
KCMBA CLE June 19, I. What are an insurance company s duties to its insured?
KCMBA CLE June 19, 2018 Third-Party Bad Faith I. What are an insurance company s duties to its insured? II. III. If you are attempting to settle a case with an insurance company, how should your settlement
More informationThird Party Bad Faith MoBar CLE June 4, 2015, 12:00 2:00 p.m. By John L. Kellogg
Third Party Bad Faith MoBar CLE June 4, 2015, 12:00 2:00 p.m. By John L. Kellogg HOW TO SPOT A POTENTIAL BAD FAITH SETUP, DISCOVERY ISSUES, AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BAD FAITH 1. Policy Limits Settlement
More informationCan an Insurance Company Write a Reservation of Rights Letter that Actually Protects Their Right to Deny Coverage in Light of Advantage Buildings?
Can an Insurance Company Write a Reservation of Rights Letter that Actually Protects Their Right to Deny Coverage in Light of Advantage Buildings? By Kevin P. Schnurbusch Rynearson, Suess, Schnurbusch
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationI. Introduction. Appeals this year was Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 COA
Fisher v. State Farm: A Case Analysis September 2015 By David S. Canter I. Introduction One of the most important opinions to be handed down from the Colorado Court of Appeals this year was Fisher v. State
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE
More informationCLM 2016 New York Conference December 1, 2016 New York, New York
CLM 2016 New York Conference December 1, 2016 New York, New York Adjuster training - Teaching Good Faith to prevent Bad Faith, Including Practice Advice to Avoid Extra-Contractual Claims in the Claim Handling
More informationCase 3:10-cv Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 32 Filed in TXSD on 04/18/12 Page 1
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00527-CV In re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY O P I N I O N Real party in interest Guy
More informationEXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA. Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins
EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins I. INTRODUCTION EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA MARCH 30,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SEVER
ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT R. ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-792
More informationDecided: April 20, S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 20, 2015 S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. ( Piedmont
More information2018 Annual Conference March 14-16, 2018 Houston, Texas. Policy Limit Demands:
2018 Annual Conference March 14-16, 2018 Houston, Texas Policy Limit Demands: The New Plaintiff's Strategy and How to Protect Insurers and Defense Counsel Summary Plaintiffs have recently adopted a strategy
More informationProcedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions
Procedural Considerations For Insurance Coverage Declaratory Judgment Actions New York City Bar Association October 24, 2016 Eric A. Portuguese Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP 1 Introduction Purpose of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-11336 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 07-80310-CV-KLR FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 11,
More informationFlorida Senate SB 1592
By Senator Thrasher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A bill to be entitled An act relating to civil remedies against insurers; amending s. 624.155, F.S.; revising
More informationIN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT D. R. SHERRY CONSTRUCTION, LTD., ) ) Respondent, ) WD69631 ) vs. ) Opinion Filed: ) August 4, 2009 ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appellant.
More informationMlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule
Montana Law Review Online Volume 78 Article 10 7-20-2017 Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Molly Ricketts Alexander Blewett III
More informationINSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL
INSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL 2601 AIRPORT DR., SUITE 360 TORRANCE, CA 90505 tel: 310.784.2443 fax: 310.784.2444 www.bolender-firm.com 1. What does it mean to say someone is Cumis counsel or independent counsel?
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
More informationMid-Continent v. Liberty Mutual Fiendishly Difficult High-Stakes Insurance Law Questions
Fiendishly Difficult High-Stakes Insurance Law Questions Dottie Sheffield Raymond Fischer COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. Founders Square 900 Jackson Street Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 712-9500 (214) 712-9540
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 06-1018 444444444444 D.R. HORTON-TEXAS, LTD., PETITIONER, v. MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION FRED L. SHUCHART COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas 77002 7th Annual Construction Law Symposium January
More informationDistrict Court, Adams County, State of Colorado. Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, Colorado (303)
District Court, Adams County, State of Colorado Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, Colorado 80601 (303) 659-1161 Plaintiffs: John and Ruth Traupe d/b/a Diamond T. Enterprises,
More informationCase 2:09-cv RK Document 34-1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 209-cv-06055-RK Document 34-1 Filed 10/22/10 Page 1 of 15 PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. GLOBAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 6:13-cv-01591-GAP-GJK Document 92 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3137 CATHERINE S. CADLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION v. Case No: 6:13-cv-1591-Orl-31GJK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Reinicke Athens Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION REINICKE ATHENS INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
More informationDecided: July 11, S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: July 11, 2014 S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
More informationErcole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2014 Ercole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationInsurance Bad Faith MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT. A commentary article reprinted from the November 24, 2010 issue of Mealey s Litigation Report:
MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Pitfalls For The Unwary: The Use Of Releases To Preserve Or Extinguish Any Potential Bad-Faith Claims Between The Primary And Excess Insurance Carriers by
More informationAUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA
AUTO INSURACE BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA PRESENTED BY JEREMY FLACHS, ESQUIRE LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY FLACHS 6601 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE SUITE 315 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22312 September 30, 2016 BAD FAITH-AUTO
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 4:14-cv-00849 Document 118 Filed in TXSD on 09/03/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session TIMOTHY J. MIELE and wife, LINDA S. MIELE, Individually, and d/b/a MIELE HOMES v. ZURICH U.S. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationTHE STATE OF FLORIDA...
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE STATE OF FLORIDA... 1 A. FREQUENTLY CITED FLORIDA STATUTES... 1 1. General Considerations in Insurance Claim Management... 1 2. Insurance Fraud... 4 3. Automobile Insurance...
More informationCALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION SUBROGATION
CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION SUBROGATION WORK COMP LAW GROUP, APC ADDRESS 4921 E Olympic Blvd., E Los Angeles, CA 90022 TELEPHONE (888) 888-0082 EMAIL info@workcomplawgroup.com 2016 Work Comp Law Group,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY. Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK FEB 14 2007 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO RICHARD ACOSTA, v. Plaintiff/Appellant, PHOENIX INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee.
More informationInsurance - Excess Liability Resulting from the Use of a Non-Waiver Agreement on an Insurance Contract Allegedly Void Ab Initio
William & Mary Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 14 Insurance - Excess Liability Resulting from the Use of a Non-Waiver Agreement on an Insurance Contract Allegedly Void Ab Initio Avery Thomas Repository
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed July 22, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-342 / 08-1570 Filed July 22, 2009 ADDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KNIGHT, HOPPE, KURNICK & KNIGHT, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee. Judge. Appeal from
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-1333 Alexandra Sims lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SERENITY HARPER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4987 )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RETO et al v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN RETO and : CIVIL ACTION KATHERINE RETO, h/w : : v. : : LIBERTY MUTUAL
More informationNEGLIGENT BAD FAITH? LIMITING INSURANCE BAD FAITH TO ITS ROOTS
NEGLIGENT BAD FAITH? LIMITING INSURANCE BAD FAITH TO ITS ROOTS By: Amanda Proctor and Christopher Freeman the consideration to be paid, the risks to be Christopher B. Freeman is a shareholder in Carlton
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
More informationNew claim regulations in New York: Key points to know before January 19, 2009
JANUARY 5, 2009 New claim regulations in New York: Key points to know before January 19, 2009 By Aidan M. McCormack and Lezlie F. Chimienti 1 Effective for policies issued after January 19, 2009, New York
More informationBRIEF OF THE ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS, AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS' POSITION
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, Petitioner, vs. DALE E. JENNINGS, JR., and TAMMY M. JENNINGS, Respondents. CASE NO. 92,776 ON CERTIFIED
More informationPitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds
BluePrint For Design Professionals Pitfalls of Adding Clients or Other Design Professionals as Additional Insureds By Thomas Hay and Kevin Kieffer Architects and engineers who obtain professional liability
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. Docket No Terry Ann Bartlett
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT Docket No. 2014-0285 Terry Ann Bartlett v. The Commerce Insurance Company, Progressive Northern Insurance Company and Foremost Insurance Company APPEAL FROM FINAL
More informationRIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE
RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE Wes Johnson Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 4452 Telephone: 214 712 9500 Telecopy: 214 712 9540 Email: wes.johnson@cooperscully.com
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Verdicts in Excess of Policy Limits: Determining the Insurer's Duty to Defend and Settle Navigating the Nuances of the Insurer's Duties and Risk
More informationSTOWERS UPDATE HANDLING EARLY STOWERS DEMANDS
STOWERS UPDATE HANDLING EARLY STOWERS DEMANDS 25 th Annual Insurance Symposium April 6, 2018 R. Brent Cooper 2018 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. It is not
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/14/2013 :
[Cite as Whisner v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 2013-Ohio-4533.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY DANIEL L. WHISNER, JR., et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, :
More information2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE. By Jennifer Kelley
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Ins. Co., No. 11-0394, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Aug. 23,
More informationPenny Wise and Pound Foolish? Issues for Excess Insurers in the Wake of Comerica and Qualcomm. By Patrick J. Boley
Penny Wise and Pound Foolish? Issues for Excess Insurers in the Wake of Comerica and Qualcomm By Patrick J. Boley I. Introduction When a loss exceeds a primary insurer s limits, a question often arises:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-cv MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ROSSCO HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff, vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-cv-04047 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationCase 3:12-cv JJB-RLB Document /20/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:12-cv-00257-JJB-RLB Document 394 11/20/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THE SHAW GROUP INC. SHAW PROCESS FABRICATORS INC. VERSUS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 4, 2011 Docket No. 29,537 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CHRISTINE SANDOVAL and MELISSA
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Compton, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Compton, Senior Justice JOHN A. BERCZEK OPINION BY v. Record No. 991117 SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON April 21, 2000 ERIE
More informationThe Ever Changing Duty to Defend and. How It s Currently Leading to Bad faith
ACI s Insurance Coverage & Extra-Contractual Disputes The Ever Changing Duty to Defend and November 30-December 1, 2016 How It s Currently Leading to Bad faith Benjamin A. Blume Member Carroll McNulty
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS 21ST CENTURY PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION May 24, 2016 9:15 a.m. v No. 325657 Oakland Circuit Court BARRY ZUFELT
More informationATTORNEYS FEES RECOVERY. ACCEC Annual Meeting May 11, 2017
ATTORNEYS FEES RECOVERY ACCEC Annual Meeting May 11, 2017 Robert D. Allen, The Allen Law Group Nicholas Nierengarten, Gray Plant Mooty Sara M. Thorpe, Nicolaides Fink Thorpe Michaelides Sullivan LLP 2
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 7, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 7, 2001 Session JOHNETTA PATRICE NELSON, ET AL. v. INNOVATIVE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAKELAND NEUROCARE CENTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION February 15, 2002 9:15 a.m. v No. 224245 Oakland Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 98-010817-NF
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before O'BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
ACLYS INTERNATIONAL, a Utah limited liability company, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 6, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationBurden Of Proof Issues In Consent Judgments
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Burden Of Proof Issues In Consent Judgments by R. Steven Rawls, Esq. Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP Tampa, Florida A commentary article reprinted
More informationThis exclusion protects the named insured, as well as its insurer, from
Exclusion 2: 'The insurance does not apply to any person or organization, as insured, from whom the named insured has acquired such products or any ingredient, part or container, entering into, accompanying
More informationNo. 07SA50, In re Stephen Compton v. Safeway, Inc. - Motion to compel discovery - Insurance claim investigation - Self-insured corporation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/ supctindex.htm. Opinions are also posted on the
More informationF I L E D September 1, 2011
Case: 10-30837 Document: 00511590776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 1, 2011
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE H. DAVID MANLEY, ) ) No. 390, 2008 Defendant Below, ) Appellant, ) Court Below: Superior Court ) of the State of Delaware in v. ) and for Sussex County ) MAS
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON
[Cite as Heaton v. Carter, 2006-Ohio-633.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant JUDGES: Hon.
More informationv No Jackson Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ARTHUR THOMPSON and SHARON THOMPSON, UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2018 Plaintiffs-Garnishee Plaintiffs- Appellees, v No. 337368 Jackson Circuit Court
More informationDEFENDING BAD FAITH CLAIMS - - THE INSURER S PERSPECTIVE
DEFENDING BAD FAITH CLAIMS - - THE INSURER S PERSPECTIVE Eric A. Portuguese Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer LLP Updates and Hot Trending Topics Affecting Insurance Coverage NYSBA May 12, 2017 INTRODUCTION Expanding
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationRESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VECTOR CONTROL JOINT POWERS AGENCY REVISING THE LITIGATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VECTOR CONTROL JOINT POWERS AGENCY REVISING THE LITIGATION MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the VECTOR CONTROL JOINT POWERS AGENCY ( VCJPA )
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RABRINDA CHOUDRY, and ) DEBJANI CHOUDRY, ) ) Defendants Below/Appellants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-12-000076 ) STATE OF
More informationMIDTOWN MEDICAL GROUP, INC. dba Priority Medical Center, Plaintiff/Appellant, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant/Appellee. No.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MIDTOWN MEDICAL GROUP, INC. dba Priority Medical Center, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0276 Appeal from
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM
GROSSMAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JACK GROSSMAN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as C & R, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2008-Ohio-947.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT C & R, Inc. et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : v. : No. 07AP-633 (C.P.C. No.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE ex rel. CITY OF GRANDVIEW, MISSOURI Relator, v. No. SC95283 THE HONORABLE JACK R. GRATE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION Opinion issued April 5, 2016
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2013
GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2013 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JAMES M. HARVEY, Respondent. No. 4D12-1525 [January 23, 2013]
More informationCase 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:16-cv-00040-JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Plaintiff, Case
More informationIs Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims
Is Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims By: Kristi Singleton and Richard Gallena 1 Insurance Coverage Group The question of whether the
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI SIDNEY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD BARNES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:13-cv-0068-DGK ) HUMANA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 04/28/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSTAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA1 06-58 a/a/o Eusebio Isaac, LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 2005-SC-4899-O Appellant,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 01/29/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationEVERYTHING IN EXCESS: PURSUING A BAD FAITH CLAIM IN VIRGINIA
EVERYTHING IN EXCESS: PURSUING A BAD FAITH CLAIM IN VIRGINIA Virginia utilizes the bad faith standard in determining an insurer's liability for failure to settle within policy limits. Specifically, an
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-04130-RWS Document 55 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION PRINCIPLE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. IRONSHORE
More informationJUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE KAPELKE* Taubman and Bernard, JJ., concur. Announced February 3, 2011
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA2315 Adams County District Court No. 07CV630 Honorable Katherine R. Delgado, Judge Robert Cardenas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Financial Indemnity Company,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS POLARIS HOME FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 295069 Kent Circuit Court AMERA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LC No. 08-009667-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 8:09-cv SDM-TBM Document 41 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 808 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:09-cv-02357-SDM-TBM Document 41 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 808 PEDRO CARDENAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. CASE NO: 8:09-cv-2357-T-23TBM
More informationSOME HIGHLIGHTS OF DELAWARE TRUST LITIGATION IN 2017 AND DELAWARE TRUST LEGISLATION IN Presented at the Delaware 2017 Trust Conference
SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF DELAWARE TRUST LITIGATION IN 2017 AND DELAWARE TRUST LEGISLATION IN 2017 Presented at the Delaware 2017 Trust Conference October 24 and 25, 2017 By Norris P. Wright, Esquire 1925 1925
More information62 P.3d Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
62 P.3d 989 204 Ariz. 244 Jerry SCRUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. -0166. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. February
More informationUNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. 1. What insurer practices are addressed by statute, regulation and/or insurance department advisory?
UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES New Hampshire Law 1. What insurer practices are addressed by statute, regulation and/or insurance department advisory? a. Misrepresentation of facts or policy provisions.
More informationERISA. Representative Experience
ERISA RMKB s ERISA practice group has extensive experience representing insurance carriers, employers, plan administrators, claims administrators, and benefits plans against claims brought under the Employee
More informationWorker Compensation Third Party Recovery Litigation An Explanation of Attorney Fees
Worker Compensation Third Party Recovery Litigation An Explanation of Attorney Fees Executive Summary In Wisconsin, if a worker comp insurer retains its own attorney to pursue recovery against a third
More informationOklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases BALDRIDGE v. KIRKPATRICK 2003 OK CIV APP 9 63 P.3d 568 Case Number: 97528 Decided: 12/31/2002 Mandate Issued: 01/23/2003 DIVISION IV THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 45 July 14, 2016 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Roman KIRYUTA, Respondent on Review, v. COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner on Review. (CC 130101380; CA A156351; SC S063707)
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AMVD CENTER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 28, 2005 v No. 252467 Calhoun Circuit Court CRUM & FORSTER INSURANCE, LC No. 00-002906-CZ and Defendant-Appellee,
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 10/09/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More information